USAID packages are delivered by United States Coast Guard personnel Photo|United States Coast Guard, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Selfish and callous
Corruption, wastage and poor policies
Distorted world view and dependency syndrome
Local philanthropy and responsibility
The hottest conversation around the world lately is about the cutting of funding from the United States when the US government shut down its government aid agency, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Albeit there may be a temporary reprieve for some of the critical humanitarian funding, but generally, it is all but gone.
It may well mean the end of international development assistance as we know it, which spells disaster for a plethora of people, development and humanitarian initiatives. It can only be compared to cutting of a lifeline in some cases. No more nutritional, medical, agricultural, technological, entrepreneurial and basically many social development projects that the funds from this agency supplemented, if not entirely funded, not to mention the massive job loss around the world. It is the end of that logo that declared “USAID, From the American People”.
It is callous, maybe even selfish, and yes, very antithetical to Christian values, or better, to Jesus Christ’s values which paid a lot of attention to the poor, the weak, the downtrodden, the forgotten people. That America is cutting all the financial support it has provided over decades, (60 years) to developing countries, spells catastrophe across the non-profit world and by extension, to the developing countries in which those non-profits operate.
The USAID funding permeates huge parts of our lives, from funding lifesaving emergency response to ongoing development programs and frankly, sometimes supporting government programs too. I remember an estate in one of our cities in Kenya that was once nicknamed USAID ( or Yusaid, as the locals pronounced it), probably because it was a government housing project supported by USAID. Beside the US, other western countries have their own international development agencies like SIDA (Sweden), CIDA (Canada), UKAID (United Kingdom), AUSAID (Australia) funding a variety of projects all over the developing world. While it may be a welcome idea to receive funds from these in the short term, this development funding model ultimately creates a dependency syndrome. This is why, while what the US government is doing right now sucks, it could be seen as a blessing in disguise.
The USAID funding has a number of layers. First, it is funding by a government agency, which we can now see, depends on the whims of the president in power. Second, it is foreign aid, which again can be vulnerable to whims of the governments of the recipient countries. Third, being government funding, it may come with strings attached, especially for those in the
I have worked for organizations that depended entirely on funding, mostly from government agencies like USAID, DfID, SIDA etc, and would cease operations should those agencies be affected by policies like the current US government’s policies. Some other times, there has been serious panic rising from perilous moves by governments where recipient organizations work ban or severely restrict foreign funding, like Kenya has attempted several times, nearly crippling the work of these organizations. Indeed, some organizations no longer exist because they could not raise the funds needed to do the kind of work they did.
Many health programs especially HIV/Aids, TB and Malaria, as well as immunization programs in many developing countries are particularly vulnerable right now because some of them are largely if entirely not dependent on USAID through with funds such as the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR)which was established by the George Bush Administration in 2003. When I worked in one of those programs, I witnessed firsthand how catastrophic the situation was when if for one reason or another the program lost the PEPFAR funding. Not only wasn’t there enough funding for the testing and counselling interventions, but there also wasn’t funds for procurement and distribution of life saving antiretroviral (ARVs) drugs, one of those government functions supplemented by USAID.
I have also seen how possible it is to work without government funding, whether foreign or local. Amnesty International primarily raises funds from individual members, trusts and foundations. That way, it can be impartial and independent in doing its human rights research, campaigns and education. This is just an example of how NGOs and CSOs can fund their activities. However, it is not an easy task.
I have done both individual fundraising (or support raising as it was then known) and corporate fundraising also known as resource mobilization or business development if you want to be more sophisticated. It is a herculean task to raise the billions of dollars required to do large development projects like water, sanitation, hygiene, building schools, supporting health systems etc. It is not a walk in the park, but it is possible.
Lastly, our governments really have to step up and provide leadership. Charities exist, especially those that do development work mostly because governments have wrong priorities and have failed to deliver for their people. From consumerism where the bulk of budgetary allocations go to recurrent expenses like salaries and allowances, to poor policies that lead to wastage like repeating censuses, useless priorities like starting and engaging in wars, to downright corruption, there is lots of money to go around to fund most of the projects NGOs work on.
Kenya’s corruption rap sheet is miles long and run into billions, money that could build more and better education institutions, build and equip health facilities, provide the basic amenities like water. With less corruption and wastage, raiding people’s income via unbearable taxes would provide the funds needed to run a country and build a better society. Why for example can’t the government use the money it pumps in useless endeavors like state house renovations, surveillance, abductions and enforced disappearances to pay for an efficiently functional healthcare system, education or water and sanitation- perennial thematic areas NGOs work on?
Many African countries suffer not because of lack of money but because of poor governance, misplaced government priorities and a lack of incentive for the people to pay taxes. Foreign NGOs, and the missionaries who came before them, did not tell the locals how they managed to raise funds, have big flashy four-wheel drive vehicles, live in bigger homes in green leafy suburbs, go to the poshest hospitals and send their children to better schools than the locals. This distorted reality has further created impressions that NGOs are equated with big money. Raising funds locally is met with a lot of apathy and distrust as locals do not see why rich organizations from rich countries want to take money from them.
For a long time, many people perceived the NGO sector as where the money was, seemingly endless money from abroad. How this money was raised was rarely disclosed, because, after all, one just needed to write good funding proposals and funding was guaranteed. In their home countries, they have tax incentives to give such as rebates and relief for charity donations. In some cases, that even applies to things like the 10% tithes that so many Christian outfits have abused. The philanthropy culture on the continent is almost lacking, not that people do not care for one another, but it exists at a very micro-level that is not defined and therefore quite haphazard and untenable.
So, apart from the distorted perspective about NGOs, the mentality it created, and perhaps even ingrained in the minds of many locals is that NGO was equated with expatriates (white people and people from east Asia) and therefore people with money to dish out. Many locals thus view expatriates as rich people who either can be exploited with “mzungu prices” (white people prices) or who can be approached for money or worse, whom you can marry to escape poverty (well, not all interracial couples are transactional this way).
In a well-run economy, even the government in power becomes secure and doesn’t devote its time chasing its own shadow or going after its critics with an iron fist. Instead, it devotes its time to productivity, economic stability and wealth creation. Happy people seldom want to change their governments violently or unconstitutionally. Bad governments in weak democracies are put in place by the people who elect them. So how about better governance, beginning with a better electorate?
Comments